Did you miss the second sentence of my post? Perhaps you should take the trouble to read a little more carefully.

You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.

At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.

I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.

You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.

I am surprised that Apple seemed to have such a "hard time" with this, and Amazon throws it out there like it was no effort at all... And how is Amazon able to do purchases for .99 and Apple can't? Is it because iTunes can be used on iDevices? Why is that such a problem for these studios/networks????

Who do you think negotiated the price down to $0.99 in the first place?

At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.

So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.

Good thing I read the rest of the posts before replying, you saved me the time to compose. I was about to make exactly the same points.

What they're offering is more like a perpetual subscription, kinda-sorta.

Business services are shut down all the time. Who was it (Microsoft?) that shut down some service a while back and basically killed everyone's "purchased" data.

This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.

I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.

So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.

I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.

I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.

...This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.

You could actually say the same about iTunes video until they remove the DRM. Look at how many people got burnt when Plays For Sure turned on them. Remember when Walmart shut off their music authentication servers??

I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.

I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.

This is from the interface of a video they gave me....

In the past couple of years or so, a number of companies have been giving a copy of the movie on the DVD that was compatible with the iPhone. so Amazon didn't begin that notion.

Yeah, it's clumsy, but at least it's another source.

I'm just wary about being told that you will own this, but we will keep the copy, not you.

I don't think they are loosing money, but making less money? They probably are.

Otherwise, company loosing money on pretty much everything they sell would not be with us for too long.

They were willing to lose as much as $5 per book they sold. They were paying the publishers 50% of the list price, which was up to $30. They were then selling those books for $9.99. While I was always suspicious that they would either raise the price someday, or go back to the publishers and demand that they pay far less, once they had established a monopoly in e-book sales, as they were trying to do with this tactic, there was no indication when either of those concepts would happen. Meanwhile they were blithly losing from $1 to $5 every time they sold a book, plus the transaction costs.

Apple is estimated to be making 5 to 6 cents profit per song at a sale price of 99 cents. Amazon has been selling them for 89 cents. That would be about 5 cents below Apple's costs. And Apple sells over ten tines as many songs, so their cost per song is much less. Amazon must be losing money there as well.

Same thing for these Tv shows. Apple will again be making pennies on these rentals. Making an assumption that each download costs the same, after the first download by Amazon, it's going to cost them the same as the first time. The more times someone downloads a show, the more Amazon is in the hole for it. There's no way out for them. It's impossible that the companies gave them a better deal, as they think that 99 cents for a one time rental is already too little. So Amazon must be paying them everytime someone downloads it again.

Amazon, like Apple has risen quickly. Their sales are very large now, and they've been making good profits. They are taking the low road to marketshare. Like MS, they're using their profits in other areas to finance losses in these areas they think are so important to their future. They must believe that at the end of the day they will be able to squeeze money out of it. I'm sure they have a secret plan for that. But if they can't manage to corral the majority of the market, that plan can't be enacted.

It's tough for them as Apple is not seeing media sales as a way to large profits. They see it as a way to sell the hardware that IS the way to large profits. So they can't undersell and still eck a small profit out of it. They are taking losses. But Apple went around them in the book market, and forced the prices up to the point where everyone will make money on it for the long term, including Amazon.

HELLOOO? Who cares? These shows are for FREE on broadcast HDTV with HIGHER QUALITY.

If you rent/buy five episodes a month a DVR monthly cost is worth it.

If you aren't a numbskull, you can just hook up a small computer with a tuner card and have this functionality for FREE.

This would be impressive if it wasn't BASIC FREE BROADCAST PROGRAMMING! ! ! !

Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.

Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.

People aren't numbskulls for not doing what you think they should.

"FOX and ABC shows"

That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!

Okay, maybe I'm overreacting here, maybe for some people 99 cents isn't much of a price to pay for the convenience of seeing a show on your schedule. But it's not even a purchase, it's a rental!! With the internet TV services now maturing, why can't I just watch a free show with the commercials whenever I want to? Isn't that what the networks want us to do? Watch their shows with ads? That's how traditional TV works...why do we now have to pay for IPTV?

Anyway you, for example, if you're paying over $90/month, I bet you have a DVR. And like I said, for the cost of 5 of these stupid rentals, you can pay a monthly fee for a DVR, which allows you to keep your episodes as long as you want.

Furthermore, these rentals don't even have the correct kind of proportions. They cost half the price of the full episode to own. If you rent a movie on iTunes, it costs less than 1/3 of the price to own the DVD or Blu-Ray. $3-4 gets you an SD rental ($10-15 DVD), and $4-5 gets you HD ($15-25 Blu-ray). So why are TV episodes a full half of the price of what Apple charged for ownership?

The average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. If you rent all your TV like this, you will pay $120/month for TV, assuming you only watch 1 hour episodes. That's $240/month if you watch all 30 minute episodes. Sure, you don't have commercials, but you could buy a brand new car for that much money.

As an example, you can buy the Glee season 1 DVD for $1.60 an episode, and own them forever. It probably has some sort of special features too.

One last thing: do we know if these rentals have closed captioning? I'm not seeing it on Apple's TV page.

That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!

That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.

For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.

That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.

For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.

Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).

Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.

Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?

The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.

iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.

No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).

as soon as Apple's got it's full cloud service ready, people would be able to buy and store in the cloud and stream to Apple TV and idevices. I suspect live streaming will be coming soon too, and that the keynote live streaming was part of Apple's testing.

Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).

Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.

Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?

The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.

iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.

No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).

Like many people, I'm not interested in that stuff. despite what people think, devices like the Roku haven't sold all that well, far less than even the old aTv. I've got a top of the line Samsung Tv, and while it's very good as a monitor for Tv, the rest is junk.

That's what you don't get. There are a lot of things out there, but as far as products like this go, they sell poorly, at most, a million a year. estimates are that the aTv has been selling 3 million a year. Not great, but more than competitive.

As far as 1080p goes, read the discussion, your points there aren't useful. And as the hardware is capable of 1080p, it could be added at a later date with a software upgrade if needed.

These are interesting times (even pioneering) for tv and how content will be sold and delivered. The future seems obvious to me. How much media do you want to own when everything will be available whenever you want it, wherever you are? Me, I don't want to own any of it whether it lives locally or in the cloud. Hello! This stuff has no lasting value. Have you watched tv lately?

Besides, if it's on somebody's cloud, it will go away in due time. No company/service lasts forever. Local is even worse. Who wants to store and keep stuff compatible with new equipment/software going forward? That new show you paid 99 cents to watch twice, that'll be on netflix (or wherever) in a year, in case you want to see it again...and you already have a subscription to that. Even if you don't right now, you will. It's all about bundling and subscription. Must you make yourself believe you are watching your own "personal" copy on company XYZ's cloud?

The real fight is for who is going to deliver the best experience from a hardware/software perspective. Who is going to delight Mr. and Mrs. Couch Potato? It's not about who can become a loss leader with the cheapest per episode price. What the nerds here don't get is that it's not about nerds. Companies don't care about you. You are too small in number, too fickle, and too goddamn picky. Yeah, you like hooking up your MacBook to the tv with that 99 cent cable you scored on ebay but nobody cares. They want plug and play across all their devices and they'll pay.

You can say that about a lot of companies, but not really Amazon I think. They pioneered (large scale) selling books online, and the Kindle was around before the iPad. And Apple pays a royalty to Amazon for the right to one-click purchasing, which Amazon came up with first. It is logical, as the leader in selling physical media online, that they would try to move in to the digital products space. It is not because they are copying Apple, it is just a logical progression for them.

I don't understand how it's legal for the networks to do this. By deciding they are going to give Amazon this or Apple that, they are deciding the fate of those companies to a large extent (or trying to). This is like selling cars but charging fat people more than thin ones or giving a better deal to a certain race or ethnic group.

Basic fairness says that if they offer a product at a certain price to one company that all other things being equal, they should offer the same deal to another.

No way. Basic Americanism says that you can cut any deal you want with anyone you want. We don't need to expand the federal government to protect companies like Apple when they are unable to cut good deals.

And BTW, Apple has never been forced to sit in the back of the bus, nor has Apple been the subject of invidious discrimination.

Apple ain't an oppressed group. They are a huge merciless corporation.

If they need better businessmen in order to get better deals, then then so be it. But keep the law the same. That is how consumers prosper, rather than multinational conglomerates.

You mean the economic system where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth?

The one that's working so well right now?

Hey - like everything else, capitalism has good points and bad points. It seems to be superior as a system that creates the greatest overall wealth. But it is inferior as a system that distributes that wealth in any kind of a fair manner.

Amazon are looking like a hardball competitor in this space. I have to admit, I have purchased more books in the Kindle App on my iPad than in iBooks.

Same. If Apple would have offered iBooks on the Mac as well, and had the same selection as Amazon, I would go with iBooks. Alas my iPad stays at home and I use my MacBook Pro and MacPro desktops everywhere else.